国际条约中的征收条款研究
发布时间：2018-08-01 09:21
【摘要】：征收条款是投资条约中最为核心的实体条款之一,从国际投资法的发展历程来看,保护投资者的最初含义就是保护投资者不受东道国非法征收行为的影响。开始于20世纪90年代的投资自由化态势是以大量双边投资协定和一些重要的区域投资协定的生效为标志和结果的,其中几乎“模板化”的征收条款的存在已经确立了东道国征收外国人财产必须支付补偿的原则,而一度被视为最敏感、最富争议的补偿标准问题也已经有了明确和一致的答案。一直以来,外资征收的构成及其在国际法上的认定始终是一个比较明确的问题,然而近年来伴随着征收概念的激进扩张,这个问题的答案再度变得模糊起来。现代投资条约在征收条款中将征收界定为三种形式,即“直接征收”、“间接征收”以及“任何与征收等同或类似的行为”,尽管在理论与实践中都有观点认为这所谓“等同与类似征收行为”的措词并没有真正创造出第三种形式的征收,然而“间接征收”和“类似征收”的存在有效扩张了“征收”这一用语的含义,成为外国投资者借以向东道国提起补偿之诉的首选依据。当前国际法中有关间接征收的申诉越来越被视为是对东道国政府对外资实施管制权力的一种威胁,而实践中对这些争议并不一致的处理方法对外国投资者和东道国而言都意味着相当的不确定性,如若不能真正解决投资者财产权利和东道国管制权力之间的平衡,将无疑会对征收条款在未来的适用和发展造成危机。 本文首先对征收以及外资征收的含义及其法律依据进行了分析,结合国际投资条约及其他国际法文件中征收条款的规定,对征收条款的内容、历史发展、要件以及投资仲裁机构和司法机构有关征收的争议解决实践进行了梳理;之后文章重点对间接征收的含义、分类以及在理论和实践中的认定规则进行了分析,在此基础之上,文章对当前征收条款在国际条约中适用所存在的问题进行了总结和评述,并对其未来可能的发展趋势进行了预测;文章最后对我国签订条约中的征收条款及其未来适用应当注意的问题提出了相应的建议。全文分为七章,共计约20万字。 第一章对外资征收的基本概念进行了分析。作为政府获取或改变私人财产权利的公权力,征收的概念同征用以及国有化的概念在内涵与外延方面存在着一定程度的差异,本文更倾向于适用具有“中性”色彩的征收一词。征收的概念最早来源于格老秀斯提出的“国家征收权(eminent domain)”的概念,尽管有关征收的理论依据存在多种学说,但其中“财产权社会化”的理念最为恰当地解释了征收的原因,从而在财产权制度相对完备的几个国家开始建立国内法的征收制度。当征收财产涉及到外国人的投资时,征收制度开始同国际法有所交叉,征收条款在国际条约中确立的过程也是东道国保护外国投资者责任形成的过程。国际条约并未对外资征收下一个明确的定义,但普遍规定了征收的四个要件,而投资的定义虽不属于征收条款中的内容,但却是征收条款适用的基础,因此本文对投资的定义、范围及其日渐扩张的趋势也作了相应的分析和解释。 第二章对当前国际条约及其他法律文件中规定的征收条款进行了总结和梳理。基于征收制度的重要性以及对发展中国家外资征收权力的确认,征收条款出现在包括联大决议和宣言在内的国际法文件当中,这些法律文件就补偿的标准问题在发达国家和发展中国家之间进行了成功的妥协,坚持适当的补偿原则,但最终发展中国家因为引资的现实考虑逐渐退出了统一的阵营。而发达国家亦从未放弃制定给予外国投资者更高标准的多边投资条约的努力,却最终因为无法平衡东道国和投资者的利益而以失败告终。以NAFTA为代表的区域协定的成功运作以及BITs、RTAs的迅速推广,令绝大多数的东道国接受了“赫尔公式”和“间接征收”的存在。而依据这些投资条约和法律文件所建立的投资仲裁和司法机构在实践中也形成了有关征收认定的数量众多的案例群,本文也对此进行了综述和梳理,包括伊美求偿仲裁庭、ICSID、NAFTA、ECT、ECHR等机构对外资征收的认定实践。 第三章对国际条约中征收条款的要件进行了解读。尽管征收四要件的存在已经为大部分的投资条约所确认,但却鲜有对每一个要件的具体释义以及在实践中理解和适用的相关论述。公共利益是外资征收的目的要件,也是一个不易界定的弹性术语,针对该项要件所提出的质疑在国际投资仲裁的实践中鲜有成功,在认定时往往需要同歧视性等要件结合起来考量;遵循正当程序是征收的程序要件,这一原本属于国内法中的行政原则,其含义在国际法上并没有统一的规定,内容也并不确定,因此征收所必须遵循的所谓正当程序还应当是实行征收的国家的国内法规定的法律程序;非歧视原则是征收的实施要件,其在整个四要件当中的重要性正日益突显出来,不但已经成为判断公共利益要件的辅助标准,且因为内容相对确定已经成为投资者和仲裁庭在提起和认定征收时首选的“突破口”;“赫尔原则”已经成为国际条约中泛化的征收补偿标准,但对于何为“充分”、“及时”、“有效”,特别是如何适用“公平市场价值”来计算征收补偿的数额却并没有明确的规定和实践,本文对此进行了较为深入的探讨。 第四章着重探讨的是间接征收在国际条约中的规定及其实践。间接征收认定的核心在于东道国所采取的措施是否在效果上剥夺了投资者对其投资的使用和利益,但几乎所有的投资条约都没有对间接征收的定义和认定规则有细化的界定,直到以美国2004年BIT范本为代表的法律文件确立了对间接征收“依据事实、逐案分析”的处理规则。围绕间接征收的认定,在理论和实践中形成了“单一效果标准”,“单一目的标准”以及“兼采效果与目的的标准”之争,后者在实践中虽然获得了主导性的支持,但其具体适用的国际法标准尚未成型。“蚕食性征收”和“管制性征收”经常被视为间接征收的同义词,然而两者定义的侧重点是不同的,前者强调政府征收不易被辨认和缓慢榨取投资者利益的特征,后者则特指原属东道国警察权范围内的特定措施亦可能会产生相当于征收的效果;“蚕食性征收”的认定需要在事后采取追溯的办法才能确定,而“管制性征收”的认定和补偿最终还是公共利益所造成的经济负担的分担问题,仲裁庭在逐案分析的基础上应当遵循效率和公平的原则,寻求私人投资者和东道国利益之间的平衡。 第五章就需要补偿的间接征收与无须补偿的政府合理管制行为之间进行了区分,两者之间的界限划分不但决定了不同的补偿结果,亦决定了东道国政府可以在多大程度上管理经济或社会事务以及投资者应当在多大程度上承担自身的投资风险。对私人财产权保护的程度是对两者进行区分的核心理念,而实施的“合理性”和“非歧视性”以及“对投资的干涉程度”则是区分两者的具体认定标准。新缔结的BITs和FTAs对间接征收采取了“排除式”的规定,指明除非在极特殊的情况下,东道国为了保护合法的公共福利目标所制定或实施的非歧视的管制性行为不构成间接征收,而这些被排除的措施普遍应包括维护公共秩序和道德、环境和健康以及东道国征税的权力,东道国对这些措施的合理实施本应远离间接征收申诉的烦扰,但是对投资者保护过于激进的NAFTA仲裁实践却一度成为东道国的梦魇,也对投资者执行管制政策的意愿和能力造成了“寒蝉效应”。对于东道国环境管制和征收行为之间的区分需要结合环境权的特征以及环境法中特有的原则来进行考量,而不能一概以管制的结果论处;而东道国的征税只有带有歧视性、任意性或报复性,从而构成“没收性征税”的情况下才有可能会转变为征收行为,但现代投资条约显然意在维护视为政府“生命线”的征税权力,在实践中获得成功的申诉案例几乎没有。 第六章对当前征收条款在国际条约中的适用现状进行了总结和评析,并对该条款的未来发展趋势做出了一定的预测。历经了上个世纪80、90年代的沉寂,伴随新世纪拉美能源国有化的实践和08年金融危机背景下的“新型国有化”的实施,对直接征收条款的适用再度复苏和启动;而针对间接征收的争议日益突显,则说明无论是发达国家还是发展中国家都开始对一贯奉行的单纯追求经济增长率的做法进行反思,如何实现经济的可持续性发展和社会的整体协调发展已成为它们引导和利用外资的新价值观。因此近几年有关间接征收的条约规定日渐明确,而仲裁庭在实践中过于激进的做法也逐渐呈现出回归的态势。当前对征收条款的理解和适用过于依赖投资仲裁庭在实践中的解释,它们不但没有形成明确而一致的观点和结论,并且本身也不具有“先例”的作用,对解决征收条款规定模糊化的问题作用不大。可以预见的是如何平衡私人财产权利和社会公共利益仍将是征收条款适用的核心问题,而维护社会福利最大化的理念将在未来逐渐影响各国和仲裁庭对间接征收认定的态度;鉴于征收条款规定的模糊性以及敏感性,仲裁庭将更倾向于适用“公平公正待遇”等条款来替代征收条款;征收条款的适用,特别是管制性征收的存在可能会加剧东道国所负有的保护外国投资的义务同保护环境、人类资源和自然遗产以及保护人权等方面的条约义务之间的冲突,将这些与投资相关的实体规则逐渐融入投资条约的规定当中或许将是一种有益的尝试。 第七章着重对我国签订的投资条约中的征收条款进行了专题研究。首先,文章对我国目前已经签订的多达130个双边投资协定和其他国际条约中出现的征收条款进行了梳理,并且分析了这些条款所存在的问题;其次,考虑到我国已经兼具资本输入国和资本输出国的双重身份,文章分别就我国可能遭遇的征收申诉风险和我国的海外投资者可能遇到的征收风险,结合实践进行了分析,特别是对实践中已经出现的我国作为东道国被申诉以及我国投资者利用双边投资协定针对外国东道国提起申诉的相关案例进行了详细的分析。最后,文章对完善我国签订条约中的征收条款的规定及其适用提出了建议。
[Abstract]:The expropriation clause is one of the most important entity clauses in the investment treaties. From the development of international investment law, the initial meaning of protecting the investor is to protect the investor from the influence of the illegal expropriation of the host country. The liberalization of investment in 1990s was based on a large number of bilateral investment agreements and some important areas. The entry into force of the domain investment agreement is the mark and the result, in which the existence of almost "template" expropriation clause has established the principle that the host country must pay compensation for the expropriation of foreigners' property, and once regarded as the most sensitive and the most controversial question of compensation standard. In recent years, with the radical expansion of the concept of expropriation, the answer to this question has become blurred. The expropriation clause of the modern investment treaty is defined as three forms, namely, "direct collection", "indirect expropriation", and "any expropriation." Although there are views in theory and practice that the wording of the so-called "equivalent and similar expropriation" does not truly create third forms of expropriation, the existence of "indirect expropriation" and "similar expropriation" effectively expands the meaning of the term "levy" and becomes a foreign investment. In the current international law, indirect expropriation is increasingly regarded as a threat to the control of foreign investment by the host government, and the practice of dealing with these disagreements in practice means quite inaccurate for both foreign investors and the host country. Qualitatively, if the balance between the property rights of investors and the control power of the host country can not be truly solved, it will undoubtedly cause the crisis of the application and development of the expropriation clause in the future.
This article first analyzes the meaning and legal basis of expropriation and foreign capital expropriation, and combines the provisions of the international investment treaties and other international law documents, and combs the contents, historical development, elements of the expropriation clause and the dispute settlement practice of the investment arbitral institutions and the judicial institutions. The emphasis is on the meaning of indirect expropriation, classification and the analysis of the rules of identification in theory and practice. On this basis, the article summarizes and commented on the problems existing in the application of current expropriation clauses in international treaties, and forecasts the possible future trend of its development; the article finally signed the treaty in China. The article puts forward corresponding suggestions for the collection clause and its future application. The full text is divided into seven chapters, totaling about 20 words.
The first chapter analyzes the basic concept of foreign capital expropriation. As a public authority to obtain or change the rights of private property, the concept of expropriation has a certain degree of difference between the connotation and extension of the concept of expropriation and nationalization. This article is more inclined to apply the word "neutral". The most important concept of expropriation is the concept of "neutral". Early came from the concept of "eminent domain", which was put forward by grace. Although there are many theories on the theoretical basis of expropriation, the idea of "socialization of property rights" is the most appropriate explanation of the reason for the expropriation, and the collection system of domestic law has been set up in several countries with relatively complete property right system. When the expropriation of property involves the investment of foreigners, the system of expropriation begins to cross with international law. The process of establishing the expropriation clause in the international treaty is also the process of the formation of the responsibility of the host country to protect foreign investors. The international treaty does not impose a clear definition on foreign investment, but it generally stipulates the four requisites of the expropriation. Although the definition of investment does not belong to the contents of the expropriation clause, it is the basis for the application of the expropriation clause. Therefore, the definition, scope and increasing trend of the investment are also analyzed and explained in this paper.
The second chapter summarizes and combs the expropriation provisions stipulated in the current international treaties and other legal documents. Based on the importance of the expropriation system and the confirmation of the power to expropriate the foreign capital of the developing countries, the expropriation clause appears in the international legal articles including the General Assembly resolutions and declarations, and these legal documents are the standard of compensation. The problem is a successful compromise between the developed and developing countries and the principle of appropriate compensation, but in the end the developing countries have gradually withdrawn from the unified camp because of the realistic consideration of the investment, and the developed countries have never abandoned the efforts to formulate a multilateral investment treaty to give higher standards to foreign investors. The law ended with failure to balance the interests of the host country and the investor. The successful operation of the regional agreements represented by the NAFTA and the rapid promotion of BITs and RTAs have made the vast majority of the host countries accept the existence of the "Hull formula" and "indirect expropriation", and the investment arbitration and judicial machine established on the basis of these investment treaties and legal documents. In practice, a large number of case groups have been formed. This paper also reviews and combs them, including the implementation of the imposition of foreign capital by the Iraq arbitration tribunal, ICSID, NAFTA, ECT, ECHR and other institutions.
The third chapter explains the requirements of the expropriation clause in international treaties. Although the existence of the four requisites has been confirmed by most of the investment treaties, there are few specific explanations for each of the requirements and the relevant exposition of the understanding and application in practice. The public interest is the objective element of the expropriation of foreign capital and is not easily defined. In terms of the elastic terms, the question raised in view of this element is rarely successful in the practice of international investment arbitration. It often needs to be combined with discriminatory elements in the determination. Following the due process is the procedural requisites of expropriation, which is originally an administrative original in the domestic law and its meaning is not unified in international law. The content is not determined, so the so-called due process which must be followed should also be the legal procedure stipulated by the domestic law of the state that is expropriated; the principle of non discrimination is the requisition of the expropriation, and its importance in the whole four elements is becoming increasingly prominent, and not only has become an auxiliary standard for judging the elements of public interest, And because the relative content of the content has become the first "breakthrough" of the investor and the arbitral tribunal, the "Hull principle" has become a general levy compensation standard in the international treaties. But what is "sufficient", "timely", "effective", especially how to apply "fair market value" to calculate and collect The amount of compensation is not clearly stipulated and practice, this article has carried on the thorough discussion to this.
The fourth chapter focuses on the stipulation and practice of indirect expropriation in international treaties. The core of indirect expropriation is whether the measures taken by the host country deprive the investors of the use and benefit of their investment, but almost all the investment treaties have no detailed bounds on the definition and the rules of the recognition. According to the legal documents represented by the BIT model of the United States in 2004, the rules for the indirect collection of "according to facts, case by case analysis" are established. In the theory and practice, the "single effect standard", "single goal standard" and "standard for both effect and purpose" are formed in theory and practice. Although it has gained dominant support, the specific applicable international law standards have not yet been formed. "Expropriation" and "controlled expropriation" are often regarded as synonyms of indirect expropriation. However, the emphasis of the two definitions is different. The former emphasizes that the government is not easily identified and slowly squeezed the interests of investors. A particular measure within the scope of the police power of the host country is also likely to be equivalent to the effect of the expropriation; the affirmation of "expropriation" needs to be traced back after the event, and the identification and compensation of "controlled expropriation" is ultimately the share of the economic burden caused by the public interest, the arbitral tribunal On the basis of case analysis, we should follow the principle of efficiency and fairness and seek the balance between private investors and host countries' interests.
The fifth chapter makes a distinction between the indirect collection of compensation and the reasonable regulation of the government without compensation. The dividing line between them determines not only the different results of compensation, but also the extent to which the host government can manage economic or social affairs and how much the investor should take on its own. The degree of protection of private property rights is the core concept of the distinction between the two, while the "rationality" and "non discrimination" and "the degree of interference in investment" are the specific criteria to distinguish between the two. The newly concluded BITs and FTAs have taken the "exclusionary" Regulations for the indirect expropriation, indicating that unless they are In exceptional circumstances, non discriminatory regulatory acts made or implemented by the host country in order to protect the legitimate public welfare objectives are not indirectly imposed, and these excluded measures should generally include the maintenance of public order and morality, the environment and health, and the power of the host country to levy taxes, and the host country's reasonable implementation of these measures. It should be far from the annoyance of indirect expropriation, but the NAFTA arbitration practice, which is too radical for the investor protection, has been a nightmare of the host country and the "cold cicada effect" on the willingness and ability of the investors to carry out the control policy. The special principles of the environmental law are considered, but not all the results of the control; and the host country's tax is only discriminatory, arbitrary, or retaliatory, and thus constitutes a "confiscated tax" which may be transformed into a collection act, but the modern investment treaty is clearly intended to maintain the "lifeline" of the government. There are few cases where tax power has been successful in practice.
The sixth chapter summarizes and evaluates the current situation of the application of the current expropriation clause in international treaties, and makes a certain prediction on the future development trend of the article. It has gone through the silence of the 80,90 years of the last century, the practice of the nationalization of energy in Latin America in the new century and the implementation of the "new nationalization" under the background of the 08 year financial crisis. The application of the direct expropriation clause is revived and started again, while the increasingly prominent issue of indirect expropriation shows that both developed and developing countries have begun to reflect on the practice of pursuing economic growth rate simply pursued, how to achieve sustainable economic development and the overall coordinated development of society. To guide and utilize the new values of foreign investment for them, the provisions of the treaties on indirect expropriation have become increasingly clear in recent years, and the overly radical practice of the arbitral tribunal has gradually presented a trend of return. The understanding and application of the current terms of the expropriation are too dependent on the interpretation of the investment arbitral tribunal in practice. They have not been formed. Clear and consistent views and conclusions, and they do not have the role of "precedent", have little effect on solving the fuzzification of the provisions of the expropriation clause. It is foreseeable how to balance private property rights and social public interests as the core issue of the application of the expropriation clause, and the idea of maintaining the maximization of social welfare will be in the absence of the idea. To gradually affect the attitude of countries and arbitral tribunals to indirect expropriation; in view of the ambiguity and sensitivity stipulated in the expropriation clause, the tribunal will be more inclined to apply the terms "fair and fair treatment" to replace the expropriation clause; the application of the clause, especially the existence of controlled expropriation, may aggravate the protection of the host country. The obligation of foreign investment and the protection of the environment, human beings
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996.4
本文编号：2157116
[Abstract]:The expropriation clause is one of the most important entity clauses in the investment treaties. From the development of international investment law, the initial meaning of protecting the investor is to protect the investor from the influence of the illegal expropriation of the host country. The liberalization of investment in 1990s was based on a large number of bilateral investment agreements and some important areas. The entry into force of the domain investment agreement is the mark and the result, in which the existence of almost "template" expropriation clause has established the principle that the host country must pay compensation for the expropriation of foreigners' property, and once regarded as the most sensitive and the most controversial question of compensation standard. In recent years, with the radical expansion of the concept of expropriation, the answer to this question has become blurred. The expropriation clause of the modern investment treaty is defined as three forms, namely, "direct collection", "indirect expropriation", and "any expropriation." Although there are views in theory and practice that the wording of the so-called "equivalent and similar expropriation" does not truly create third forms of expropriation, the existence of "indirect expropriation" and "similar expropriation" effectively expands the meaning of the term "levy" and becomes a foreign investment. In the current international law, indirect expropriation is increasingly regarded as a threat to the control of foreign investment by the host government, and the practice of dealing with these disagreements in practice means quite inaccurate for both foreign investors and the host country. Qualitatively, if the balance between the property rights of investors and the control power of the host country can not be truly solved, it will undoubtedly cause the crisis of the application and development of the expropriation clause in the future.
This article first analyzes the meaning and legal basis of expropriation and foreign capital expropriation, and combines the provisions of the international investment treaties and other international law documents, and combs the contents, historical development, elements of the expropriation clause and the dispute settlement practice of the investment arbitral institutions and the judicial institutions. The emphasis is on the meaning of indirect expropriation, classification and the analysis of the rules of identification in theory and practice. On this basis, the article summarizes and commented on the problems existing in the application of current expropriation clauses in international treaties, and forecasts the possible future trend of its development; the article finally signed the treaty in China. The article puts forward corresponding suggestions for the collection clause and its future application. The full text is divided into seven chapters, totaling about 20 words.
The first chapter analyzes the basic concept of foreign capital expropriation. As a public authority to obtain or change the rights of private property, the concept of expropriation has a certain degree of difference between the connotation and extension of the concept of expropriation and nationalization. This article is more inclined to apply the word "neutral". The most important concept of expropriation is the concept of "neutral". Early came from the concept of "eminent domain", which was put forward by grace. Although there are many theories on the theoretical basis of expropriation, the idea of "socialization of property rights" is the most appropriate explanation of the reason for the expropriation, and the collection system of domestic law has been set up in several countries with relatively complete property right system. When the expropriation of property involves the investment of foreigners, the system of expropriation begins to cross with international law. The process of establishing the expropriation clause in the international treaty is also the process of the formation of the responsibility of the host country to protect foreign investors. The international treaty does not impose a clear definition on foreign investment, but it generally stipulates the four requisites of the expropriation. Although the definition of investment does not belong to the contents of the expropriation clause, it is the basis for the application of the expropriation clause. Therefore, the definition, scope and increasing trend of the investment are also analyzed and explained in this paper.
The second chapter summarizes and combs the expropriation provisions stipulated in the current international treaties and other legal documents. Based on the importance of the expropriation system and the confirmation of the power to expropriate the foreign capital of the developing countries, the expropriation clause appears in the international legal articles including the General Assembly resolutions and declarations, and these legal documents are the standard of compensation. The problem is a successful compromise between the developed and developing countries and the principle of appropriate compensation, but in the end the developing countries have gradually withdrawn from the unified camp because of the realistic consideration of the investment, and the developed countries have never abandoned the efforts to formulate a multilateral investment treaty to give higher standards to foreign investors. The law ended with failure to balance the interests of the host country and the investor. The successful operation of the regional agreements represented by the NAFTA and the rapid promotion of BITs and RTAs have made the vast majority of the host countries accept the existence of the "Hull formula" and "indirect expropriation", and the investment arbitration and judicial machine established on the basis of these investment treaties and legal documents. In practice, a large number of case groups have been formed. This paper also reviews and combs them, including the implementation of the imposition of foreign capital by the Iraq arbitration tribunal, ICSID, NAFTA, ECT, ECHR and other institutions.
The third chapter explains the requirements of the expropriation clause in international treaties. Although the existence of the four requisites has been confirmed by most of the investment treaties, there are few specific explanations for each of the requirements and the relevant exposition of the understanding and application in practice. The public interest is the objective element of the expropriation of foreign capital and is not easily defined. In terms of the elastic terms, the question raised in view of this element is rarely successful in the practice of international investment arbitration. It often needs to be combined with discriminatory elements in the determination. Following the due process is the procedural requisites of expropriation, which is originally an administrative original in the domestic law and its meaning is not unified in international law. The content is not determined, so the so-called due process which must be followed should also be the legal procedure stipulated by the domestic law of the state that is expropriated; the principle of non discrimination is the requisition of the expropriation, and its importance in the whole four elements is becoming increasingly prominent, and not only has become an auxiliary standard for judging the elements of public interest, And because the relative content of the content has become the first "breakthrough" of the investor and the arbitral tribunal, the "Hull principle" has become a general levy compensation standard in the international treaties. But what is "sufficient", "timely", "effective", especially how to apply "fair market value" to calculate and collect The amount of compensation is not clearly stipulated and practice, this article has carried on the thorough discussion to this.
The fourth chapter focuses on the stipulation and practice of indirect expropriation in international treaties. The core of indirect expropriation is whether the measures taken by the host country deprive the investors of the use and benefit of their investment, but almost all the investment treaties have no detailed bounds on the definition and the rules of the recognition. According to the legal documents represented by the BIT model of the United States in 2004, the rules for the indirect collection of "according to facts, case by case analysis" are established. In the theory and practice, the "single effect standard", "single goal standard" and "standard for both effect and purpose" are formed in theory and practice. Although it has gained dominant support, the specific applicable international law standards have not yet been formed. "Expropriation" and "controlled expropriation" are often regarded as synonyms of indirect expropriation. However, the emphasis of the two definitions is different. The former emphasizes that the government is not easily identified and slowly squeezed the interests of investors. A particular measure within the scope of the police power of the host country is also likely to be equivalent to the effect of the expropriation; the affirmation of "expropriation" needs to be traced back after the event, and the identification and compensation of "controlled expropriation" is ultimately the share of the economic burden caused by the public interest, the arbitral tribunal On the basis of case analysis, we should follow the principle of efficiency and fairness and seek the balance between private investors and host countries' interests.
The fifth chapter makes a distinction between the indirect collection of compensation and the reasonable regulation of the government without compensation. The dividing line between them determines not only the different results of compensation, but also the extent to which the host government can manage economic or social affairs and how much the investor should take on its own. The degree of protection of private property rights is the core concept of the distinction between the two, while the "rationality" and "non discrimination" and "the degree of interference in investment" are the specific criteria to distinguish between the two. The newly concluded BITs and FTAs have taken the "exclusionary" Regulations for the indirect expropriation, indicating that unless they are In exceptional circumstances, non discriminatory regulatory acts made or implemented by the host country in order to protect the legitimate public welfare objectives are not indirectly imposed, and these excluded measures should generally include the maintenance of public order and morality, the environment and health, and the power of the host country to levy taxes, and the host country's reasonable implementation of these measures. It should be far from the annoyance of indirect expropriation, but the NAFTA arbitration practice, which is too radical for the investor protection, has been a nightmare of the host country and the "cold cicada effect" on the willingness and ability of the investors to carry out the control policy. The special principles of the environmental law are considered, but not all the results of the control; and the host country's tax is only discriminatory, arbitrary, or retaliatory, and thus constitutes a "confiscated tax" which may be transformed into a collection act, but the modern investment treaty is clearly intended to maintain the "lifeline" of the government. There are few cases where tax power has been successful in practice.
The sixth chapter summarizes and evaluates the current situation of the application of the current expropriation clause in international treaties, and makes a certain prediction on the future development trend of the article. It has gone through the silence of the 80,90 years of the last century, the practice of the nationalization of energy in Latin America in the new century and the implementation of the "new nationalization" under the background of the 08 year financial crisis. The application of the direct expropriation clause is revived and started again, while the increasingly prominent issue of indirect expropriation shows that both developed and developing countries have begun to reflect on the practice of pursuing economic growth rate simply pursued, how to achieve sustainable economic development and the overall coordinated development of society. To guide and utilize the new values of foreign investment for them, the provisions of the treaties on indirect expropriation have become increasingly clear in recent years, and the overly radical practice of the arbitral tribunal has gradually presented a trend of return. The understanding and application of the current terms of the expropriation are too dependent on the interpretation of the investment arbitral tribunal in practice. They have not been formed. Clear and consistent views and conclusions, and they do not have the role of "precedent", have little effect on solving the fuzzification of the provisions of the expropriation clause. It is foreseeable how to balance private property rights and social public interests as the core issue of the application of the expropriation clause, and the idea of maintaining the maximization of social welfare will be in the absence of the idea. To gradually affect the attitude of countries and arbitral tribunals to indirect expropriation; in view of the ambiguity and sensitivity stipulated in the expropriation clause, the tribunal will be more inclined to apply the terms "fair and fair treatment" to replace the expropriation clause; the application of the clause, especially the existence of controlled expropriation, may aggravate the protection of the host country. The obligation of foreign investment and the protection of the environment, human beings
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996.4
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 吴卡;;条约规则如何成为一般习惯法——以《海洋法公约》为考察重点[J];北京科技大学学报(社会科学版);2011年02期
2 崔萌;杨冬敏;;公民受教育权初探[J];经营管理者;2011年13期
3 尹慧;;论间接征收的认定[J];企业导报;2011年10期
4 刘侃;;拉丁美洲石油投资法律障碍研究[J];法制与社会;2011年20期
5 胡晓红;;CISG在中国适用的方法论思辨[J];商业研究;2011年07期
6 王文娟;;我国惩治战争罪立法面临的挑战和建议[J];国防;2011年09期
7 薄龙;;国际法中的“软法”现象探究[J];群文天地;2011年12期
8 潘冰;;浅谈国际海事条约在我国的适用[J];中国水运(下半月);2011年07期
9 吴文汀;;论我国立法中的冲突性国际惯例[J];潍坊教育学院学报;2011年03期
10 王玫黎;;从国际条约看我国著作权法的修改——以广播权和信息网络传播权为中心[J];中国版权;2010年01期
相关会议论文 前10条
1 魏明杰;;中国与国际条约60年[A];新中国对外关系60年 理论与实践：上海市社会科学界第七届学术年会文集（2009年度）世界经济·国际政治·国际关系学科卷[C];2009年
2 蒋萍;姜丽丽;于晓丹;张洪涛;;我国船舶污染海洋环境防治立法现状及对策[A];山东省科协重点学术研讨活动成果——山东生态省建设与发展论文汇编[C];2004年
3 梁洪杰;;略论WTO规则在我国的司法适用[A];《WTO法与中国论坛》文集——中国法学会世界贸易组织法研究会年会论文集(四)[C];2005年
4 孙南申;;论WTO协议在中国的法律实施问题[A];《WTO法与中国论坛》文集——中国法学会世界贸易组织法研究会年会论文集(一)[C];2002年
5 张小勇;;《粮食和农业植物遗传资源国际条约》与知识产权[A];专利法研究（2008）[C];2009年
6 张晓东;;论欧盟法及对现代国际法的影响[A];中国欧洲学会欧洲法律研究会2008年年会论文集[C];2008年
7 刘桂荣;;外观设计法律保护的国际溯源和国际条约[A];专利法研究（2002）[C];2002年
8 杨松;;WTO与中国经济法制度的发展[A];辽宁省哲学社会科学获奖成果汇编[2007-2008年度][C];2010年
9 陈朝晖;;跨国公司社会责任规范体系及有关问题[A];2008全国博士生学术论坛（国际法）论文集——国际经济法、国际环境法分册[C];2008年
10 张磊;;关于国际法渊源内涵和外延的重新审视[A];2008全国博士生学术论坛（国际法）论文集——国际公法、国际私法分册[C];2008年
相关重要报纸文章 前10条
1 孙恬 资深新闻评论员;无视国际条约 美印核合作后患无穷[N];世界报;2005年
2 郭晓宇;人大常委会举行第二十四次专题讲座[N];法制日报;2006年
3 赵杰 傅桦;人大年内审议加入WIPO条约报告[N];第一财经日报;2006年
4 中国社科院研究生院 叶琦;国际条约的国内法适用分析[N];经济日报;2005年
5 高晓力;国际条约在涉外民商事审判中的适用[N];人民法院报;2007年
6 易茂;订立涉外合同 应遵循国际条约[N];中国船舶报;2003年
7 全晓书;中国已签署所有与防扩散相关的国际条约[N];人民日报;2003年
8 ;掌握国际条约 做好质检工作[N];中国国门时报(中国出入境检验疫报);2002年
9 魏珍妮;两项条约助力网络著作权保护[N];中国知识产权报;2006年
10 特约记者 黄文霞;两国际条约对版权产业的影响[N];中国知识产权报;2001年
相关博士学位论文 前10条
1 石俭平;国际条约中的征收条款研究[D];华东政法大学;2011年
2 王小林;国际投资间接征收制度解读和反思[D];吉林大学;2011年
3 王晓丽;国际环境条约遵约机制研究[D];中国政法大学;2007年
4 王娜;国际法对转基因产品国际贸易的管制[D];中国政法大学;2005年
5 唐青阳;规则的解释与解释的规则[D];西南政法大学;2005年
6 顾崧;国际民商事诉讼竞合问题研究[D];大连海事大学;2007年
7 刘瑛;《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》解释问题研究[D];复旦大学;2007年
8 汪炜;航运法律责任制度若干问题及博弈分析[D];武汉理工大学;2009年
9 朱莉;国际私法的经济分析[D];吉林大学;2007年
10 刘恩媛;国际环境损害赔偿的国际私法问题研究[D];复旦大学;2009年
相关硕士学位论文 前10条
1 陈彬;国际投资中的间接征收标准探究[D];北京交通大学;2011年
2 苏瑾;间接征收与我国海外投资利益保障探究[D];烟台大学;2011年
3 王芳;国际投资中的间接征收问题研究[D];西南政法大学;2011年
4 王红红;国际投资中的间接征收法律问题研究[D];山西大学;2012年
5 杨学伟;国际投资中的国有化法律问题研究[D];中国政法大学;2010年
6 王颖;国际间接征收中环境例外规则法律问题研究[D];安徽大学;2010年
7 李国良;国际投资中的间接征收问题研究[D];外交学院;2010年
8 吴彦杰;国际石油投资间接征收问题研究[D];中国政法大学;2011年
9 罗磊;间接征收界定的晚近发展与中国对策研究[D];中国政法大学;2011年
10 黄琼;国际投资中间接征收的界定研究[D];暨南大学;2011年
，本文编号：2157116
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2157116.html
